THE FAILURE OF the U.S. Senate in December to pass the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act is the latest in a long history of wrongs associated with our country’s use of Agent Orange.

Time is running short for many of the veterans who are suffering ailments that may be related to the use of lethal herbicides in the Vietnam War.

You could say the wrongs go back to the 1960s and the decision to use Agent Orange to clear the jungles of Vietnam — without knowing the possible effects on U.S. troops.

But that’s history now, and there’s nothing to be done except perhaps learn from the disaster.

What could be done is to extend to the estimated 52,000 so-called Blue Water Navy veterans and Marines who were on Navy ships the same Agent Orange-related benefits that those who served on the ground or on inland waterways can receive. Instead, the Department of Veterans Affairs has repeatedly chosen to deny the benefits to those who served on ships just off Vietnam.

And Congress has dragged its collective feet on legislation that would ensure sailors and Marines who patrolled the offshore waters have the same benefits as other veterans affected by Agent Orange.

When officials approved the use of the herbicides in Vietnam, they naively thought that since they would be targeting enemy areas, the dioxin in the herbicides wouldn’t harm U.S troops. They were wrong.

Then, when increasing numbers of Vietnam veterans and their families began reporting cancers, type 2 diabetes, leukemia, birth defects and other ills associated with Agent Orange, it took lawsuits and challenges all the way to the Supreme Court before veterans began to get help from the chemical companies that made the herbicides. That delay was wrong.

Twenty years ago, President George H.W. Bush signed the Agent Orange Act mandating that a range of diseases associated with the herbicides the U.S. used in the Vietnam War be treated as the result of veterans’ war service, with appropriate benefits.

That was the right thing to do.

But when the Department of Veterans Affairs began to quibble over which veterans qualify as having “served in the Republic of Vietnam,” saying that those who were on ships off the Vietnam coast didn’t make the cut — that was another wrong.

And when Congress repeatedly failed to broaden the definition and make blue water sailors eligible for help for Agent Orange-related ills — that was wrong.

The loophole the VA uses to avoid including blue water sailors rests on the preposition “in.” The legislation that gives benefits to veterans for Agent Orange-related illnesses says it apples to any “veteran who, during active military, naval or air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam.”

Over time, Veterans Affairs decided that sailors on ships just off the coast were not “in” Vietnam. But studies have shown that those sailors (and Marines on the ships) were exposed when water from the Mekong Delta swamps sprayed with Agent Orange ran into the South China Sea and was used on ships for drinking, laundry and cleaning.

The problem is money, as Vietnam veterans age and more apply for benefits. Most recent VA secretaries have opposed including Blue Water sailors on grounds of costs.

The senators who blocked the most recent Blue Water Navy bill cite increasing costs. Some think too many ailments already have been added to the list of those presumed to be linked to Agent Orange. They complain that the VA is swamped and call for more scientific studies. Unfortunately, many of the veterans who are ill can’t wait years for studies.

Lawsuits to force the extension of coverage are making their way through the federal courts, but Congress could take the lead, clarify the law and make sure the needed money is available.

Congress, in other words, could do the right thing at last. The sailors and Marines who served on ships just off Vietnam answered our country’s call and did their duty. The country has its duty: to take good care of all veterans who suffer because of Agent Orange, regardless of whether they were in Vietnam.

Followed notifications

Please log in to use this feature

Welcome to the conversation.

We strive to be fair and accurate in our reporting. In turn, we ask
that you remain civil and open-minded in your responses. Comments
should be relevant to the topic at hand, factual and thoughtful.
The comments section is like a letter to the editor, not a chat
room. Please read the full commenting rules before posting.
Read the full rules here.

Watch this discussion.Stop watching this discussion.

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

We strive to be fair and accurate in our reporting. In turn, we ask
that you remain civil and open-minded in your responses. Comments
should be relevant to the topic at hand, factual and thoughtful.
The comments section is like a letter to the editor, not a chat
room. Please read the full commenting rules before posting.